Comments on Advance Indiana™: HJR-3 Proponents Ponder Lawsuit To Place Amendment On 2014 Ballot

Pence running for which office in 2016? I can'...

2014-02-20T10:16:59.276-05:00

Pence running for which office in 2016? I can't believe he would screw Indiana's poor and sick out of Medicaid just to pick prince of Indiana. Mike-y has always wanted to be King and he's not shy about stepping on people why he's doing it.

Pence doesn't want it on the ballot in 2016, w...

2014-02-20T03:39:10.807-05:00

Pence doesn't want it on the ballot in 2016, when he'll run for re-election.
This annoys me. The proponents speak of putting it up to the people, but they want to game it to an election with lower turnout. So much for their high mindedness.
And Pence, so much in favor, doesn't want it on the ballot with him. It should be glued to him! He's made it one of his priorities!

Mitch said to avoid Social issues before the elect...

2014-02-19T22:03:18.089-05:00

Mitch said to avoid Social issues before the election...Ponder that. Jobs #'s, DCS, FSSA, highways, Bridges, Tif's, and more ignored of late too..Child care issues...MHH, Mainstreet, ASC, lobbying registrations, smoke detectors, Marion, IN Mayor, Indy Mayor with pay to play...and on an on it goes behind our backs...deals being made to divert our attention while we succumb to this drama...Really proud of two stations and blogs staying point on...

I'm so sick of hearing about this subject, man...

2014-02-19T16:55:56.394-05:00

I'm so sick of hearing about this subject, many other things to worry about, jobs, taxes, unemployment, but no, it's this stupid shit!!!!!!

I disagree, Carlos. There has to be an enforcement...

2014-02-19T16:38:10.882-05:00

I disagree, Carlos. There has to be an enforcement mechanism for placing an amendment on the ballot. What if the legislative leaders decided not to certify a duly passed amendment, or used specious reasoning for not certifying it for the ballot? The constitution commands the legislature to place the issue before voters upon the satisfaction of the constitutional legislative approval process. Without a judicial remedy, legislative leaders could thwart the will expressed by a majority of the legislators.

The argument is not a bad faith argument, but I do...

2014-02-19T14:51:16.027-05:00

The argument is not a bad faith argument, but I do think the courts should refrain from addressing the issue on grounds that Article 16 itself does not provide for court enforcement. In the federal system it would be akin to the political question doctrine.

Yes, the first sentence is the same in both versio...

2014-02-19T13:40:39.344-05:00

Yes, the first sentence is the same in both versions passed by the legislature.

I don't dismiss the argument out of hand. What...

2014-02-19T13:39:59.145-05:00

I don't dismiss the argument out of hand. What I can say for certain is that the legislature cannot alter the process for amending the constitution. I understand they are interpreting it one way, but the courts could interpret it differently and force the issue to be placed on the ballot if they agree with the proponents' argument.

Don't both versions of the amendment have the ...

2014-02-19T13:34:21.544-05:00

Don't both versions of the amendment have the identical first sentence? Aren't the two sentences independent of each other, ie can't they stand alone? If so, it could be argued that two successive GAs passed the first sentence which then should be put on this year's ballot. Neither sentence, as I understand it, is dependent on the other. So I don't think it's a bad faith argument to make. I also believe that were it an issue of great importance to the Left, such an argument would carry the day.

Here's the text of the constitutional provisio...

2014-02-19T12:58:30.373-05:00

Here's the text of the constitutional provision for amending the constitution. It mandates with the use of the word "shall" that the General Assembly submit the amendment to voters if it is approved by a majority of the members elected to both Houses. It's silent on changes in the form of the amendment from one General Assembly to the next. The courts will construe the meaning.

"Section 1. (a) An amendment to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the General Assembly. If the amendment is agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, the proposed amendment shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals, and referred to the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election.
(b) If, in the General Assembly so next chosen, the proposed amendment is agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each House, then the General Assembly shall submit the amendment to the electors of the State at the next general election.
(c) If a majority of the electors voting on the amendment ratify the amendment, the amendment becomes a part of this Constitution."

I'd argue that the judiciary doesn't have ...

2014-02-19T12:37:16.223-05:00

I'd argue that the judiciary doesn't have the power to put the proposed amendment on the ballot. Article 16 states that "the General Assembly shall submit the amendment to the electors of the State at the next general election." The judiciary - just like the executive branch - simply isn't mentioned.

Wouldn't the addition of the "referred to...

2014-02-19T12:24:18.432-05:00

Wouldn't the addition of the "referred to the next General Assembly for reconsideration and agreement" language itself qualify as a substantial change?

This would be a lawsuit whose chance is not slim a...

2014-02-19T12:09:42.764-05:00

This would be a lawsuit whose chance is not slim and none but none and none. Obviously eliminating a whole sentence is a substantive change.